The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt, many cities are on the verge of insolvency, our overrun healthcare system, police forces, social services, schools, and our unsustainably generous welfare-state programs are stretched to the max. We average Americans know that. So why has this issue been allowed to be turned upside down with our “leader” creating such unsafe conditions while at the same time obstructing any economic recovery by creating more dependents than he allows producers? His friendly wealthy bipartisan elite, who want cheap foreign labor and can afford for themselves the best “border security” money can buy in their own exclusive communities, do not care that Obama tapped us out…

President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It’s not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution’s role in protecting our rights.

It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.

She’s the first Republican of any significant national stature to make this call. And she’s the kind of figure who could potentially recruit others to the cause — people who will want to be heard. Palin surely doesn’t carry the kind of weight she once did in the GOP, but she still has a significant tea party following and is highly popular among the conservative base…

[I]t throws a sizable and unpredictable variable into what was already shaping up to be a good election year for Republicans. That same could be said for the Benghazi investigation (though that effort appears to have the support of the American people). The name of the game for the GOP right now is maintaining their edge and trying to win back the Senate. Everything else is noise.

Secondly, it lends credence to Democrats’ argument that Republicans are controlled by the extreme wing of their party. And to the extent that Democrats can make the 2014 election a referendum on the GOP’s conduct in Congress (see: government shutdown), it’s to their benefit.

Buchanan made the same points in arguing against impeachment: “The effect would be to enrage and energize the Democratic base, bring out the African-American vote in force and cause the major media to charge the GOP with a racist scheme to discredit and destroy our first black president.” Rush Limbaugh scoffed for similar reasons back in March. When Republican congressmen have had this question tossed at them during town halls over the past five years, the usual response is that there’s no point impeaching when the Senate is controlled by Democrats. The Senate will vote to acquit, Obama will remain in office, and that’ll be that. It’s silly to put the country through an ordeal where the outcome is foreordained, especially when the political fallout is unpredictable and potentially damaging to the GOP. That argument becomes (slightly) harder to make, though, if Republicans retake the Senate this fall. Impeachment would still be futile: You need two-thirds of the Senate to vote for conviction to remove the president from office, and there’s no way no how no chance the GOP will have anything close to 67 seats in January. But maybe that won’t appease impeachment supporters. If you’ve got a majority, they might say, why not at least try? Even if they fail (and they will), there’ll at least be some moral sanction in reaching a bare majority to convict. It could even be that Obama will feel chastened by the rebuke and act less aggressively in 2015-16. I’m … pretty sure that wouldn’t happen, but that’ll be the argument.

Needless to say, although the prime target here is Obama, the secondary target is Mitch McConnell and the looming Senate Republican majority. I remember writing somewhere last year after the shutdown that impeachment could become the new “defund” effort — doomed to futility but sufficiently pure in intent and supported by a Republican with sufficiently high standing among grassroots conservatives that to oppose it for logistical reasons is to fail an ideological litmus test. Ted Cruz gave “defund” its political rocket fuel, Palin potentially could be providing the rocket fuel to impeachment. If McConnell decides that it’s pointless to try it because they’ll never get 10-15 Democrats to join them in convicting, it’ll be taken by righties as “proof” that squishy Republican majorities are no better than Democratic ones. That’s a useful grievance for a tea-party champion like Cruz to run on in the 2016 primaries, which makes me eager to hear what he thinks of this idea. I’m also eager to see which policies, specifically, Boehner will cite in his separation-of-powers lawsuit against O, as I’m pretty sure he’s not going to follow Palin’s advice and name immigration as Obama’s chief offense. The last thing the GOP establishment wants is to give the media a reason to print “REPUBLICANS SUE TO KEEP ILLEGALS OUT” headlines when Beltway Republicans are desperate to pander to Latinos before 2016. But that’s potentially also useful to a Cruz 2016 campaign: If both Boehner and McConnell refuse to challenge Obama on DACA and other immigration policies, Cruz could position himself as a champion of border enforcement by contrast.

By the way, don’t be so sure there’d be a majority in favor of convicting Obama even if Republicans retake the Senate. The usual centrist suspects — Collins, Murkowski, Kirk, et al. — will be chilly to the idea. And now that Thad Cochran owes his reelection to black Democrats in Mississippi, it’s hard to believe he’d turn around and vote to remove the first black president. To even have a bare majority willing to convict, I suspect you’d need at least 57 or so seats in GOP hands next year, which is a tall order for November. But again, this is mainly about constructing a true conservative/RINO litmus test, so if a bunch of RINOs end up voting to acquit, no biggie. That’ll simply be taken as proof of the underlying point that the Senate needs more tea partiers. Speaking of which, your exit question: Does John McCain agree with his former running mate that the president should be impeached? Inquiring minds want to know!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I’d say yes, but there’s no point. We’d never get a fair trial and Obama could eat live, partial birth abortion survived babies and the Senate still wouldn’t convict and the media would say it’s all a witch hunt due to racist Republicans and the War on Women.

The Standing to Sue Obama
Members should let Boehner take the lead against executive excess.
une 15, 2014 5:48 p.m. ET
*************************

President Obama is setting a dangerous precedent by suspending his enforcement of laws on health care, immigration, drugs, banking and so much else, but the courts may soon be asked to throw a brushback pitch. That is, unless a rump group of backbenchers undermines the legal challenge.

Mr. Obama’s practice of unilaterally waiving his duty to faithfully execute statutes has been abetted by a presumed lack of legal “standing” to contest his suspension. To the extent individuals have not suffered concrete injuries that the courts traditionally redress, he feels he can act without consequence to create whole-cloth regulatory regimes. This makes the inherent Article I powers of Congress irrelevant, with perhaps permanent damage to the separation of powers and political accountability. If Mr. Obama gets away with it, the next President probably will too.
(More…)

AP, one has to wonder what this President has to do for it to be more important to stop a run a way administration on course to destroy this nation than look the other way and hopefully gain a majority in the Senate. If you have a President who ignores congress, what difference does it make who controls that congress? I just hate enablers like yourself.

I’m positive Obama would wear impeachment as a badge of honor. When you operate without shame, shameful things are celebrated, and there is no shame in our national conscience anymore. No (D) Senators have the moral compass to guide them towards integrity and honor in the office. We’re a nation without a sense of morality right now.

Say what you will about Nixon, but shame played a role in his actions. These folks are different. Impeachment would be a valuable/meaningless/political tool to be used against the (R)s come election time, and our low-info types (Clinton was impeached for sex!) won’t know any different.

And now that Thad Cochran owes his reelection to black Democrats in Mississippi, it’s hard to believe he’d turn around and vote to remove the first black president.

Why so much faith that Cochran will honor his newfound black devotees (ahem) AFTER he is elected??? He’s a RINO. The ultimate RINO McCain shows you can lie to get votes ( “Build the damn fence”) then carry on however you want afterward.

Leaving aside the politics of it. The fact that the first black President is not going to be removed from office no matter how evil, vile, incompetent, lazy, and stupid. Clearly the bar for blacks in high public office is very low. All you have to do is shuck and jive and engage in racial and gender politics. Gays, illegals, and rabid shrill women love the guy no matter the fact he has cost them jobs, freedom, and economic opportunity. Single issue voters are as stupid as Obama but they are loyal.

The reality is that impeachment is the appropriate course of action and the one that should be used to address the lawlessness of the rat-eared wonder, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Kathleen Sebilius, “Richard Windsor”, and others.

Agree he’s committed “high crimes & misdemeanors” deserving of impeachment. With that said, I don’t believe is “gestures” – they’re a waste of time and energy.

Because Senate Democrats would never vote to impeach in significant numbers (if at all), impeaching Obama would be a “gesture” – the kind of gesture which would rally Democrats to the support of him & their party in the fall elections.

Dumb, dumb, dumb …. but then, Republicans are known as the “dumb party.”

Obama has been following Alinsky all the way. He has been prodding and provoking just like a good community organizer.

The Feds bussing illegals all over America was intended to provoke a violent, or stupid, backlash by us. And it worked.

Alsinsky says

The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted

- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse

- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins.

Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

Have you noticed that Obama has remained very, very calm lately? Even in spite of all the scandals? He wants to be the last seemingly sane person standing (plus Ms Warren).

Trying to bankrupt a family with a Down’s syndrome child in order to drive its mother out of office is not forbidden in the Constitution, so Obama’s on solid legal ground. Everything else is footnotes, even our lice-ridden footnote guests in the Southwest.

Obama isn’t even trying to cloak his lawlessness anymore and it’s just going to get even more brazen. It’s almost as if he’s daring them.

forest on July 8, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Because he’s finished the work he was brought in to do. That’s why he’s appeared so blase and disinterested the past year or so. He couldn’t care less if they impeach him…he’s set for life no matter what the result and the glorious goals of global communism have been furthered beyond repair.

Honestly, it makes Obama a victim if we impeach him.
Besides, the senate would never such a thing…I’m talking Harry Reid and John McCain. Two sides of the same coin.
JFK was a miserable clusterfark of a president and he’s revered.
Nice to see a republican with some balls, though.

Everything he’s doing while trying to destroy the country is to get impeached so he can rally the troops and start a civil “incursion.”

njrob on July 8, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Notice how he’s been trying to provoke our side into violence lately?

That’s what the Bundy standoff was all about, as well as the attempts to bus illegals into Murietta, California.

So far, the Feds have been FORCED to back down each time by nonviolent, even armed resistance. But I suspect that it won’t be much longer before The Regime just cuts loose with automatic gunfire… Being forced to back down to… PEASANTS is something they cannot tolerate.

That is the best idea she’s had since she advocated for the government shutdown. She has a true strategic mind. She reminds me of Napoleon at Waterloo.

coolrepublica on July 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Well, cr, you’re wrong again, but that shouldn’t bother you. By now, you’ve probably grown calluses where any conscience would rub due to the ridicule you receive and that you so richly deserve.

Napoleon’s strategy at Waterloo was winning until Blucher showed up. Napoleon had instructed his Field Marshal of his Calvary, Marchand, to harry and harass Blucher’s routed forces to keep them running. Instead, in typical French fashion, Marchand blew his assignment and allowed over 100,000 of Blucher’s troops to basically turn around and march to Waterloo. Had Marchand done his job, Napoleon would have won at Waterloo.

So, the strategy of Napoleon was sound. Were it not for an inept Field Marshal, it would have won the day. Just like Palin’s plans are bungled by Boehner and the other GOPe, who don’t really want a conservative to have a good day. They’ve hated real conservatives since Reagan showed them for the bootlickers they are.

Just like you hate conservatives because we show you for the imbecile you actually are.

This is NOT the time to be using our biggest and best weapons. We should be concentrating on winning elections.

And then after that, we can clean up what needs to be cleaned up, crappy Obama legislation, crappy Democrats, crappy RINO’s, make-believe conservatives, lobbyists and any one or any thing that’s beholden to the Political Class.

Of course he should be, but he won’t be. The political damage, such as it is, from her suggestion is overblown, too…nobody is going to care about his in November, especially since the GOP isn’t likely to take it up.